The London Metropolitan University Writing Centre: An overview of teaching and research

1. The London Metropolitan University Writing Centre: An overview of teaching and research Savita Bakhshi School of Psychology, Faculty of Life Sciences, London Metropolitan University

2. Overview • Write Now CETL • London Metropolitan University Writing Centre • Overview of research • Future work PsyPag 2009

3. Write Now CETL • Write Now Centre for Excellence in Teaching and Learning (CETL) • “Write Now aims to enrich students' learning experiences through the development of innovative, evidence-based provision focused on writing for assessment. It celebrates and promotes student writing in the disciplines, enabling students to develop academic and disciplinary identities as empowered, confident writers” (http://www.writenow.ac.uk) • Partner institutions: Liverpool Hope University and Aston University PsyPag 2009

4. Student Writing Mentor Scheme • A major initiative of the Write Now CETL is running a Student Writing Mentor Scheme at each of the three partner institutions • Undergraduate and postgraduate students provide writing support for other students • Support is provided through one-to-one tutorial sessions, with each session lasting up to an hour (this varies across institutions) • Collaborative and non-directive • Aim to enable students to take responsibility for their work PsyPag 2009

5. LMU Writing Centre • Opened in October 2006 • Writing Centre staff: • 14 Student Writing Mentors (11 undergraduate and 3 postgraduate) from a range of different disciplines including Psychology, Business, Film Studies, and Media and Communications • Mentors see students from their own and other disciplines • Since its opening, the Centre has held over 2000 tutorials and around 20% of the users have been psychology students PsyPag 2009

6. LMU Writing Centre • Mentors attend two days of intensive training at the start of each semester: • Tutorial delivery (e.g. collaborating with the student) • Writing Centre ethics and virtues (e.g. confidentiality) • The writing process (e.g. how to draft, revise and edit) • Academic requirements (e.g. referencing) • Writing Centre administrative procedures • Mentors and students required to provide written feedback after each session PsyPag 2009

7. Overview of research • Stage 1: To analyse mentors’ experiences of Scheme (Year 1) • Qualitative study • Mentors’ written feedback of 1300 hour-long tutorials (i.e. ‘How do you feel you were able to help the student?’) • Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) (Smith & Osborn, 2003) • Findings: • Theme 1:Interpersonal relationship between student and mentor • Theme 2: Student’s relationship to own writing • Theme 3: Student and mentor working together • Theme 4: Mentor self-reflections PsyPag 2009

8. Overview of research • Findings (cont…) • Used findings to develop Year 2 Training programme for Mentors • Year 2 reflections also analysed • Same themes emerged • More importance placed on working collaboratively and non-directiveness • Further information: Harrington, K., O’Neill, P., and Bakhshi, S. (2007). Writing Mentors and the Writing Centre: Producing integrated disciplinary writers. Investigations in University Teaching and Learning, 4 (2), 26-32. PsyPag 2009

9. Overview of research • Stage 2: To investigate students’ views of Scheme (Years 1 and 2) • 6 focus groups (n=34) informed questions for survey (n=99) • Survey questions focused on: • Motivations for coming to the Centre • Students’ specific writing concerns • Nature of relationships with Mentors • Students’ attitudes to own writing before and after tutorials PsyPag 2009

10. Overview of research • Findings • Students came to the Centre to talk to someone about their assignments and wanting assurance that they were on the right track • Writing concerns: structuring a piece of writing (40% of respondents) and writing in an academic style (40%) • Psychology students wanted a mentor from the same discipline • 95% of psychology participants (n = 24) found the Centre very or fairly helpful for developing their writing • High levels of student satisfaction with tutorials and the Centre overall PsyPag 2009

11. Overview of research • Findings (cont…) • Evaluation suggests that peer mentoring schemes that focus on writing can be a useful aid in supporting students’ development as academic writers • Further research needed in the different ways in which the Centre is helping students with their academic writing • Further information: Bakhshi, S., Harrington, K., and O'Neill, P. (2009). Psychology students’ experiences of academic peer mentoring at the London Metropolitan University Writing Centre. Psychology Learning and Teaching, 8 (1), 6-13. PsyPag 2009

12. Future work • Research shows peer mentoring can be an effective way of providing writing support for undergraduate and postgraduate students • Stage 3 (in preparation): • Investigate the effectiveness of peer academic writing tutorials on student learning, achievement and retention • Intervention study • Only a snapshot of research being conducted at LMU. For information about research conducted across the three universities, see: http://www.writenow.ac.uk PsyPag 2009

13. References • Bakhshi, S., Harrington, K., and O'Neill, P. (2009). Psychology students’ experiences of academic peer mentoring at the London Metropolitan University Writing Centre. Psychology Learning and Teaching, 8 (1), 6-13. • Harrington, K., O’Neill, P., & Bakhshi, S. (2007). Writing Mentors and the Writing Centre: Producing integrated disciplinary writers. Investigations in University Teaching and Learning, 4(2), 26-32. • Harrington, K., O’Neill, P., & Bakhshi, S. (forthcoming). Student experiences of peer mentoring in writing at the London Metropolitan University Writing Centre. Manuscript in preparation/submitted for publication. • O'Neill, P., Harrington, K., & Bakhshi, S. (forthcoming). Training peer tutors in writing: A pragmatic approach. Manuscript in preparation/submitted for publication. PsyPag 2009

14. http://www.writenow.ac.uk Savita Bakhshi s.bakhshi@londonmet.ac.uk PsyPag 2009